122
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Cypher@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I don’t have stats on hand but its much less than 77% of photons “turning into heat”.

Those photons do lose some energy which is kinetic and becomes heat but it’s not 100% either, as those photons mostly just bounce off after losing a little energy.

[-] Antimutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Solar panels appear dark - more so than a 23% reduction can account for. The whole of the other 77% will not immediately turn into heat, but the bulk of it will. Some photons bounce, with a dependence on colour - but what happens to them then? A tiny amount will escape the Earth, with the rest absorbed by objects, atmosphere and eyes - mostly becoming heat. And what happens to visible light when it loses "a little energy"? It becomes infrared - y'know: heat.

[-] Cypher@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Look I don’t agree with your comment being downvoted but my statement is broadly correct though I don’t have the numbers to back it up.

You’re also correct that the photons are likely to bounce around and impart more of their remaining energy within our world/atmosphere.

That would happen with most objects (barring perfectly reflective surfaces and even then) such as a roof though…. So it’s not like your solar panel is increasing the total energy imparted to the “system”.

[-] Antimutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Indeed it doesn't increase the total energy. It converts much of it into energy that our excess CO2 traps - IR. So we must either leave it as visible light, or push technology to convert it into microwave, both of which can escape.

[-] Cypher@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

And use what exactly for energy generation? Covering even 5% of the planet in solar panels would be less disastrous than continuing with fossil fuels.

Your proposal also isn’t mutually exclusive with solar power. You can do both… absorb light for electricity generation and efficiently reflect light to reduce total absorption.

[-] Antimutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago

Both would kill us, so it doesn't matter which passes the finish line first. This is what the article warns about - massive engineering projects that affect the climate, whether for the purpose of geo-engineering or not.

Nothing wrong with solar IF we can pump the heat out of the atmosphere, or dodge it in some other way. Which we can't, yet, and a solution to this is not waiting around the corner.

this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
122 points (97.7% liked)

World News

38563 readers
2530 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS